911 Truth Movement

[AngryAnt]

Nah mate. That's just the nicest way of saying you're absolutely 100% wrong.

Regarding your "belief system" - like I say there's no point challenging somebody's religion. And I can't be wrong about your "conjecture" - because if you can't be held accountable for what you state because it's "conjecture" only, then we can't be wrong on whatever we might say about your "conjecturing".

Spin works both ways bucko.

 

[Disco08]

To the point ofknowing specificsandeven altering lawsand regulations toensureits success, yes, definitely ridiculousand irrational.

Being intelligent doesn't preclude anyone from being irrational and ridiculous.

Still those things happened. They're fact and need to be explained. Just as the destruction and suppression of evidence and the rigging of the commission need to be explained.

Not many who support a proper inquiry claim full nowledge of what happened. They just insist that many facts need proper explanation.

Perhaps one or two intelligent people can have the same irrational and ridiculous beliefs (faith in God excluded - no one is relying on complicty to get access to heaven and no one is indoctrinated to believe in complicity) but millions? At what point will you accept that your beliefs aren't the be all and end all here?

 

[Baloo]

Still those things happened. They're fact and need to be explained. Just as the destruction and suppression of evidence and the rigging of the commission need to be explained.

Not many who support a proper inquiry claim full nowledge of what happened. They just insist that many facts need proper explanation.

Perhaps one or two intelligent people can have the same irrational and ridiculous beliefs (faith in God excluded - no one is relying on complicty to get access to heaven and no one is indoctrinated to believe in complicity) but millions? At what point will you accept that your beliefs aren't the be all and end all here?

Easy. When someone can produce evidence that supports the alternate theory.

To date, there is none, though Harry's LOL's are pretty convincing.

 

[Disco08]

And this is what I don't understand. I think to most reasonable, objective people the insurance fraud aspect is just too far-fetched.

1. He was the under-bidder on the property - would not have know he had secured the property until mid 2011 I think. The original highest bidder is a publicly listed company, i doubt they could be easily influenced to be in on the scam. I doubt Larry and tghe board could have concocted this and not a word has come out about it.
2. He didn't take possesion until 8 weeks before the attack - how could he have setup the 3 perfect "demolitions" in this time?
3. He must have known the exact date of the attacks - otherwise how could he plan his days? No one has indicated the exact date was "known". Surely he was not relying on info that attacks were "imminent"?
4. No one who was in on the scam (I imagine it must have involved at least a dozen people?) has ever come forward. If you argue they are all dead why would there be no questions on these deaths from the families etc? maybe they were all homeless?

These are the obvious questions, i'm sure there are more that make the insurance fraud angle a real longshot.

Do you agree it is a pretty far-fetched scenario?

No not really. How long does it take to rig a building for demolition? How do you know Larry and Lew didn't conspire to ensure Larry won the lease well before the contracts were signed? Certainly the price seemed very high and Larry eventually paid it in full when no one else was willing to go close. No need for anyone else to be in on the scam. Just price it out of everyone else's reach.

Northwoods and the GoT were both conspiracies which remained secrets for decades. People can keep secrets and obviously the incredulity of many towards anything contradicting the OR helps there too.

None of this conjecture would be happening if experts were able to agree that all 3 collapses occurred primarily due to fire though. That's far from the case though. Obviously the simplest solution is to properly investigate these collapses. Why there's any resistance to this is beyond me given it's what should have happened anyway. Don't we want a thorough inquiry to help ensure future generations of high rise buildings are safer as a result of these collapses?

 

[Disco08]

Easy. When someone can produce evidence that supports the alternate theory.

To date, there is none, though Harry's LOL's are pretty convincing.

There's any number of facts which fit perfectly well into a theory including complicity. Most of them in fact fit far better into that theory than they do into the official narrative. Can you name one provable factual event that fits the theory that al Qaeda was solely responsible better than the theory the Bush regime used the attacks as a platform for war in the middle east and covered up as much evidence as possible?

 

[Baloo]

There's any number of facts which fit perfectly well into a theory including complicity. Most of them in fact fit far better into that theory than they do into the official narrative. Can you name one provable factual event that fits the theory that al Qaeda was solely responsible better than the theory the Bush regime used the attacks as a platform for war in the middle east and covered up as much evidence as possible?

So no evidence that the US govt were complicit then ?

You asked me at what point I could accept my beliefs weren't correct. I gave you the answer. Your other questions have no bearings on my beliefs so I don't see the point of them.

Btw,I liked the move from "won't someone think of the families" to"won't someone think of the future buildings". It gave me a good chuckle.

 

[Disco08]

I'm glad you got a laugh out of it but it's a pretty logical point.

I can list factual events that better suit complicity if you want. It'll be a long list. Can you name one that better suits no complicity? Just one mate.

 

[Baloo]

Nowhere did I ask for facts that could be construed into all manner of things. I asked for evidence. There is none. I'm not changing my beliefs until there is some.

By the way, what's the Game of Thrones conspiracy that became fact ?

 

[Disco08]

http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2008/08/gulf-of-tonkin-vietnam-war.html

Facts are evidence. The destruction of evidence is evidence of a cover up.

Just one Baloo.

 

[Baloo]

http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2008/08/gulf-of-tonkin-vietnam-war.html

Facts are evidence. The destruction of evidence is evidence of a cover up.

Just one Baloo.

Your facts don't prove anything. You believe they prove complicity but there is no proof of complicity.

I've conceded there is most likely a cover up. I believe its to coverup theGov mishandling of 911 before, during and after theevent. You believe it proves they were complicit.

You don't have a single fact that proves US complicity. Do that and I'll entertain your diversion.

 

[AngryAnt]

Can you name one provable factual event that fits the theory that al Qaeda was solely responsible better than the theory the Bush regime used the attacks as a platform for war in the middle east and covered up as much evidence as possible?

Can you provide one provable factual event that proves that George Bush's magical thermite fairies didn't blow the buildings?

 

[Disco08]

I'm not looking for proof boys. Just name one factual event that better supports the OR than complicity. These are factual events remember. You should be able to name hundreds.

Baloo, I've said many times that there is no definitive proof.

 

[Baloo]

I'm not looking for proof boys. Just name one factual event that better supports the OR than complicity. These are factual events remember. You should be able to name hundreds.

Baloo, I've said many times that there is no definitive proof.

Right. So now you know why i hold my beliefs and what it will take to change them. I'm glad that's sorted.

I'm in no mood to go on another disco merry go round diversion. Its all be done before and the laughing clowns are starting to look like something out of a S.King novel.

 

[Disco08]

No worries. I'll take it you can't name one factual event that better supports the OR then. Just remember that the next time you call anyone irrational.

 

[Disco08]

The irony of you just using the word "diversion" isn't lost on me either. :hihi

 

[Baloo]

No worries. I'll take it you can't name one factual event that better supports the OR then. Just remember that the next time you call anyone irrational.

Take it anyway you want. How you'll end up twisting it to suit an argument will be fun to watch. I like watching a pro in action.

You asked a question. I gave you a finite answer. And now you've run off on your classic tactic of diverting to another seemingly related question. I couldn't be *smile* doing that again.

 

[Disco08]

You answer confused the words "evidence" and "proof".

 

[Baloo]

You answer confused the words "evidence" and "proof".

I assumed an intelligent troofer as yourself would understand the context of my answer despite my inability to use the technically correct wording.

Oh, by the way, a fact and evidence are two distinctly different things.

 

[Disco08]

If you say so mate.

The fact Philip Zelikow was made CEO is evidence towards the rigging of the 9/11 commission.

The fact the 9/11 commission was rigged is evidence towards a cover up.

Works fine for me.

 

[Baloo]

If you say so mate.

The fact Philip Zelikow was made CEO is evidence towards the rigging of the 9/11 commission.

The fact the 9/11 commission was rigged is evidence towards a cover up.

Works fine for me.

Again with the twisting and diverting. No one has argued against a cover up.

We're discussing the belief that the US Gov were complicit before to the point of making changes to laws to ensure the hijackers success.